ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs UHD Graphics 630

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking8301596
Place by popularity44not in top-100
Power efficiency14.61no data
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameComet Lake GT2RS200
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date1 October 2017 (8 years ago)5 October 2002 (23 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1842
Core clock speed350 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistors189 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+++180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattno data
Texture fill rate26.450.37
Floating-point processing power0.4232 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32
TMUs232

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x1AGP 4x
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
Shared memory++

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)7.0
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.61.4
OpenCL2.1N/A
Vulkan1.1.103N/A

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

UHD Graphics 630 1192
+59500%
Samples: 4
ATI IGP 340M 2
Samples: 4

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD17no data
1440p10no data
4K7no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 27 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 5 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 5
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 10−11 no data
Counter-Strike 2 19 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 6 no data
Fortnite 14−16 no data
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8 no data
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Valorant 45−50
+100%
21−24
−100%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 10−11 no data
Counter-Strike 2 4 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 29
+222%
9−10
−222%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Dota 2 21
+200%
7−8
−200%
Far Cry 5 8−9 no data
Fortnite 14−16 no data
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 7 no data
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Metro Exodus 3 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Valorant 45−50
+100%
21−24
−100%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−11 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Dota 2 19
+171%
7−8
−171%
Far Cry 5 8−9 no data
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Valorant 45−50
+100%
21−24
−100%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 14−16 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24 no data
Metro Exodus 1−2 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27 no data
Valorant 24−27 no data

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 no data
Far Cry 5 5−6 no data
Forza Horizon 4 7−8 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6 no data

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Valorant 14−16 0−1

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Dota 2 7 no data
Far Cry 5 2−3 no data
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics 630 is 600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics 630 performs better in 22 tests (96%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (4%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 October 2017 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 14 nm 180 nm

UHD Graphics 630 has an age advantage of 14 years, and a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between UHD Graphics 630 and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that UHD Graphics 630 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon IGP 340M is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel UHD Graphics 630
UHD Graphics 630
ATI Radeon IGP 340M
Radeon IGP 340M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 4648 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 630 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about UHD Graphics 630 or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.